Bully XLs - if breed-specific legislation isn't the answer, what is?

[Middlelanehogger]

Upfront - I'm glad bully XLs will be banned. There have been way too many attacks and if we're going to have a banned breeds list then they definitely belong on it!

But I do agree a bit with people who say BSL is a bit pointless because backyard breeders will just create another one and then there will be a few years of muddled statistics before the govt realises this is the new killer breed and then has to take months and months to define it etc

So what should the rule be... ideally one that is predictive in advance and not just waiting for the dogs to kill first... Size/weight? Zero tolerance for "minor" bites? Dog licences for all? Make owners & breeders criminally responsible for murders their dogs commit?

YANBU = yes this is a serious issue
YABU = my velvet hippo would never hurt a fly

I have small dogs, if one of them went rabid and attacked to kill you’d get stitches and a bad bruise.

Ah so that's ok then if they bite me! It's only a bruise and stitches why should I care!

This kind of attitude from small breed owners fucks me right off.

It's like a get out of jail card for lazy owners who don't want to put any time and effort into training their rats to be well behaved.

I agree with BSL. Some dogs are too unstable and dangerous for society. It’s sad for those people that feel the need to have them, but I don’t want to have to deal with them ever again. Any dog who has the drive (not necessarily ability) to tear something apart is not acceptable to have as a pet.

If I were in charge with unlimited resources I would take a multi-level approach:

1. Ban imports, other than those carefully selected and required to improve pedigree gene pools. There’s too many dodgy cropped genetic messes coming through disguised as something else, not to mention the state of the ‘rescues’
2. Ban breeding. The only way a breeder should be able to breed is by requesting to do so via the kennel club, and I strongly believe all dogs ‘passed’ for breeding should have temperament and health testing as standard, performed by a qualified behaviourist. If a dog cannot pass the temperament test it must be neutered. I also believe the inbreeding coeffieicy should be checked and the previous temperaments- anything with aggression anywhere is immediately not passed (as in XL who have numerous human aggressive/killing dogs in their foundation lines)
3. All breeders should have qualifications to do so and be educated on genetics, the effect of stress in pregnancy and early socialisation.
4. All dogs to be microchipped, insured, registered and neutered (unless exempted for breeding- see temperament and health testing)
5. Tougher sentences for anyone with a dog showing aggressive behaviour that isn’t actively taking steps to control that dog including dog to dog aggression.
6. All dogs to have passed obedience training to a minimum standard in order to be lisenced. Anything without the temperament to pass should be subject to stricter controls (ie. Muzzling in a public place)
7. Leads in all public places.
8. The banning of the rehoming of all dogs via all unregulated methods- make it illegal to sell or buy dogs on sites such as gumtree etc. You can only acquire a dog via a registered breeder or a rescue centre where the dogs are assessed and passed for rehoming by a qualified behaviourist as safe. If someone’s professional registration is on the line I presume they will be thorough.
9. Anyone involved in violent crimes or known to the police should be assessed in order to decide if they are responsible enough to own a dog. More dog ownership bans to those who can’t control their animals.
10. Dog ownership needs to become much much more expensive.
11. Ban any dog that is related to an already banned breed, eg. Any pitbull descendants. Why can you create something from something illegal and it also not be illegal? Makes no sense.

Obviously this would mean less unstable dogs being rehomed but sadly for them it’s not a bad thing. I don’t think dogs who have bitten or aren’t suitable for society are suitable for rehoming. I very much disagree with passing on problem dogs.

I also understand crossbreeding would be severely impacted, however there are so many pedigree breeds surely you can select one. It would also avoid people ‘creating’ new monsters.

I say this as someone who loves, breathes and works with dogs, something really drastic needs to change not only for the safety of people but the welfare of these poor dogs.

I my home country any dog breed and their cross that has been purley developed for fighting are banned outright thats your American Pittbull ect.
Some breeds have to be registered with the authority & police (that includes the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and some Mastiff breeds.and big dogs like Rottweiler & Rodisian Ridgeback).

You can own/ import a benned breed or their cross. But, you have to undergo a home check and do a course in K9 behaviour and husbandry.
The dog will have to be assessed for its temperament 4-5 times throughout it's lifetime. It has to be neutered before it reaches sexual maturity.

When out in public, the dog is kept on a short lead and muzzed.

Bans by breed don't make us safer.

Indeed it's a contributory factor to the rise of ownership of dogs so big they cannot be classed as pitbulls, and the number of serious attacks has not diminished.

I think greater exploration of the Spanish model, of weight based muzzle and lead requirements might be the best way forwards.

Plus an end to unhelpful things like the way the "YABU" vote is labelled on the poll in this thread. Because opposing breed/type based bans is not only coming from owners of large/powerful dogs (let alone those few silly enough to use a phrase like that), nor is is rooted in ignorance of the issues

They ban bull breeds and the dickhead breeders will find a way around it. To sell their pups to morons who use them for status and fighting.

Dogs aren’t born bad. The issue is the breeders and the idiots who buy these dogs. It’s bullies now, it has been Dobermans, Rottweilers, Alsatians… they will find another breed to exploit.

No idea what the answer is.

Agree. Banning should stay and some of the other suggestions sound good

Ban all dogs unless working or assistance dogs.

It's not a requirement for vets to implant microchips. Anyone can do a quick course and many breeders do their own chips.

I microchip and I'm currently offering my services free to any XL Bully to help them meet the requirements.

Any dog that attacks someone should be an automatic prison sentence for the owner. That dog that chased people and attacked them that was caught on film, the police "spoke to the owner". How ridiculous!! There needs to be serious consequences for owners of any breed who attacks someone

Strict reform of breeding and laws around this (XLs are extremely inbred and if you research their gene pool you'll find the same dog coming up time and time again within one dog's line, that dog himself was aggressive to humans)

Dog licencing and mandatory testing prior to getting a licence, like a theory test

Fines and courses attached to licences for minor offences

Increased lead laws countrywide with a zero tolerance policy, including for the "my dog is friendly" brigade

Increased manpower to enforce existing dog related bylaws such as public space protection orders

Regulating the dog training and behaviour industry so that only suitably qualified and experienced professionals can work with the public, instead of Bob down the road starting a business tomorrow because he likes dogs

Oh and stricter rules for dog walkers. Dog walkers in my area are allowed to walk 6 dogs at once. How tf can one person control six medium to large breed dogs? They can't.

I think all puppies should come from the highest regarded breeders, with those losing their licensed to trade if they are known to use inbreeding or are deliberately manufacturing powerful dogs with an aggressive nature. Completely ban amateur breeding. Also for the owner, a compulsory annual dog license only awarded if the dog is looked after in the right conditions (so no more enormous bored dogs in tiny flats, for example). All dogs on lead in public but more play parks available for dogs to socialize together off lead.

The problem with a lot of these suggestions is that they require compliance. Mandatory vet checks, mandatory puppy training, licenses, even muzzles in public to an extent; these are all things that responsible, law-abiding citizens will do and the kind of people who breed and keep dangerous dogs will just ignore. It already illegal to own a dangerously out of control dog. That hasn't stopped people.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Banning is definitely an imperfect solution for the reasons outlined in the OP. Much tougher sentences for owning a dog that hurts someone might help, though it may often be tough to determine who that is.

Curious to know, would banning them mean all the current ones around would be put to sleep?

Curious to know, would banning them mean all the current ones around would be put to sleep?

No. They will all need to be neutered and spayed so that they can't be bred from, require special insurance, be muzzled and on lead at all times in public (including in a car). There will likely be a process of applying for exemption, to prove that rhey arent a danger to the public. If they are exempted they will still need to do all of these things. If there are concerns about their temperament they will be put to sleep.

Any future ones will be seized by the police if they are suspected to be an XL Bully and again they will have to go through this process in court. It will be illegal to breed or cross breed them.

Any in rehoming centres without owners will be put to sleep as soon as they are banned regardless of temperament.

I believe that exempted banned breeds (when they are actually banned) also can't be rehomed. So if their owner dies, the dog gets PTS, again, regardless of temperament or if they've ever done anything, how compliant their owner has been.

Dogs to be on leads and muzzled when out in public unless in specified off lead areas.
All dogs to be microchipped and licenced.
All dogs to be spayed/ neutered unless special dispensation ( reputable breeder for example).
Strong repercussions for those who do not comply with rules. Big fines/ prison, lifetime bans on dog ownership, confiscation of dogs,....
The problem is that irresponsible owners that are not going to willingly start doing the right thing. And that those looking for status dogs to look hard, do not care about dogs or public welfare, also if xl bullies are banned they will just switch to another " hard looking" breed.

@Puffinsandcreeks exempted banned breeds can be passed to another owner in the case of owner's death etc. but the new keeper must be a previous owner or known to the dog such as a relative of the owner, a walker or groomer. This would need to be authorised by a court.
Which is why some XL Bullies in rescues may be adopted by kennel staff willing to become their legal keeper.

exempted banned breeds can be passed to another owner in the case of owner's death etc. but the new keeper must be a previous owner or known to the dog such as a relative of the owner, a walker or groomer. This would need to be authorised by a court.
Which is why some XL Bullies in rescues may be adopted by kennel staff willing to become their legal keeper.

That is good to hear, I knew they were discussing amending this element of legislation but I didn't know it had gone through.

I think all dogs should have to be licensed with the license conditions adjusted according to breed and personal history eg. a dog of a particular breed, or one who has bitten before is only allowed out with a muzzle. The licence should be like a driving licence, you have to be able to produce it all all times.

Also owners should be insured for damage to person or property their dog might cause. Obviously big heavy breeds or those with a propensity for biting would have higher premiums (just like teenage or elderly drivers do).

Also dogs over a certain size / weight shouldn't be allowed off lead in public places. I recently dog-sat for a relative's Labradoodle - a soppy beast but big and strong. I struggled to contain him, even on a lead, when he took a dislike to another passing dog. It scared me a bit; he nearly pulled me over. I was just glad for that leash or we would have had a full blown fight on our hands and I wouldn't have dared intervene.

I'd like to see muzzles and leads being mandatory for all dogs, with increased spending on police and council patrols to enforce. I can't see taxes going up to pay for this though given the austerity towards public services

Sent too soon wanted to say I'd like licences to cover some form of insurance for dogs to support their health and better regulation of breaders

The problem here is the cost of admin vs the benefit. The government will only do what wins votes and what is cost effective. Since this is a relatively small, but well publicised problem, the government will not expend limitless resources to solve it.

I would think the fastest and cheapest way to solve most dog issues would be to ban the sale of dogs on Facebook, gumtree etc. It won't solve all of it, but it would stop a lot of irresponsible breeding as there would be no market. Then some targeted action against the breeders of fighting dogs with higher penalties for instances where the dog has attacked.

Blanket breed bans will just move the problem in the way we have seen with the XL Bullies, which aren't actually a breed. Something else will get created to replace them, so we will be in a never ending loop.

This.

For disclosure, I love bull breeds and own an American Bulldog as well as a Staffie.

I do think that by and large, these dog attacks in the media are dogs that have been poorly bred by backyard breeders and kept in inappropriate conditions with inadequate training. My job involves visiting people at home - it is shocking the amount of people who keep dogs in small flats or houses with no gardens and never walk them! This coupled with allowing kids to climb all over them and scream and shout at them is a recipe for disaster. These conditions would be dreadful for any dog, yet the XL bully seems to be the dog du jour and their huge current popularity for these owners is skewing the statistics.

There is no doubt they have much more capability than some other dogs to cause injury or worse, yet I do not believe it is the actual breed of dog that is inherently aggressive, just that many more of them are kept in these appalling conditions which means there is an accident waiting to happen.

The XL bully should not be banned, but there absolutely needs to be a massive crackdown on dog ownership. The most logical way is dog licences with robust legislation, mandatory training and proper penalties for people breaching the licence conditions. There also needs to be a huge crackdown on unregulated dog breeding.

Banning the XL will not tackle the root cause of the issue, these people will move on to another breed of dog and the cycle will continue.

@Shadowchaser - hang on, you want a private organisation to be determining the legal status of dogs and breeding? An organisation that explicitly selects for inbreeding and poor health in their breed standards?

The Kennel Club is part of the problem. Part of the solution is to remove their influence, not expand it.